Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Vineet Kumar on 27 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Ms. Manisha Khurana Kakkar, DJS
Civil Suit No: 227/2020
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC),
South Extn. PartI,
F40, 2nd & 3rd floor, Ring Road,
New Delhi110049. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Vineet Kumar
S/o Shyamvir
R/o A8/620, Amar Colony,
Gali no.4, East Gokalpur,
Delhi110094.
... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 2,83,790/ ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.02.2020
DATE OF ARGUMENTS: 05.01.2021
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT:27.01.2021
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case:
1. The plaintiff bank has filed this suit against the defendant, seeking recovery of (a) Rs. 2,83,790/; (b) pendentelite interest and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum (c) costs of this suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff bank as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed along with the plaint of this suit is that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. This suit has CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5 been filed by the plaintiff bank through Sh. Alok Manglik, who is competent to sign, verify and institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank as per the regulations 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred on it under State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification dated 27.03.1987 published in the Gazette of India on 02.05.1987. It is stated that the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of car loan and the plaintiff bank had sanctioned a car loan of Rs. 4,80,000/ in favour of the defendant, on 08.07.2013, in respect of which the defendant had executed various documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. As per the said documents, it was interalia agreed that the defendant would repay the said loan amount in 84 equated monthly EMIs of Rs. 8,081/ each commencing from 08.07.2013.
However, defendant failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,25,824.82/ which was due as on 11.12.2019. In this regard, the plaintiff bank had interalia served a legal notice dated 11.12.2019, upon the defendant. As per the averments in the plaint, despite service of the said legal notice, defendant neither regularized his loan account nor cleared the dues of the plaintiff bank. It is, thus, alleged that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover from the defendant, a sum of Rs. 2,83,790/, along with interest as on 05.02.2020 along with interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, the present suit.
3. The summons for settlement of issues of this suit were issued qua the defendant, vide order dated 07.02.2020 passed by Ld. Predecessor. However, despite service of summons by way of affixation on 28.02.2020, defendant failed to appear before the court and was proceeded exparte vide order dated CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5 07.03.2020 passed by Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter, matter was listed for Ex parte evidence of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
4. Counsel for the plaintiff bank had relied upon judgment Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., CS(OS) 1213/2011 whereby Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"5. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead exparte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examinationinchief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examinationinchief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. "
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, since no purpose would have been served by leading exparte evidence in the present matter, therefore, vide order dated 15.12.2020, the same was dispensed with.
Finding:
6. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Varun Chandiok, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, on 05.01.2021. During the course of arguments, counsel for plaintiff bank had interalia submitted that the case of the plaintiff bank stands duly proved by virtue of unchallenged affidavit of evidence of PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik and the annexed documents therewith and as such, the plaintiff bank should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5
7. The present suit falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the loan was disbursed from the South Extension, PartI of plaintiff bank and the defendant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Further, the present suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation against the defendant by the plaintiff bank as the loan was disbursed/sanctioned on 08.07.2013, which was to be repaid back in 84 months starting from the said date. The last payment towards the repayment of loan amount was made by the defendant on 28.11.2017 as is evident from the interest calculation sheet placed on record for the period 01.10.2017 to 05.02.2020 as well as statement of account placed on record for the period 08.07.2013 to 09.01.2020. The present suit was filed on 06.02.2020 i.e. within three years of the said date i.e. 28.11.2017.
9. The defendant has not appeared to contest the present suit and the affidavit of evidence of PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Thus, the unchallenged affidavit of PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik supported by the aforesaid documents has established the liability of defendant to pay the remaining loan amount along with interest, to the plaintiff bank.
10. The plaintiff has claimed recovery amount of Rs. 2,83,790/. However, perusal of the statement of account along with interest sheet placed on record shows that the last payment was made by the defendant on 28.11.2017 and, thereafter, only interest has been levied by the plaintiff bank on the outstanding amount. However, it has not been specified at what rate of interest the said interest was calculated and on what basis the same has been claimed. In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,25,824/ (rounded CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5 off) i.e. the outstanding amount as on 28.11.2017 as shown in statement of account placed on record.
11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India v Ravindra, 2001 SC 3095, the grant of pendentelite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and is not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is granted pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which appears to be just and equitable.
12. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, the outstanding amount of Rs.2,25,824/ (rounded off) along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with costs of the suit.
13. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (Manisha Khurana Kakkar)
today on 27.01.2021 Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
This judgment contains 05 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Manisha Khurana Kakkar) Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5